Most people ask whether a protocol is upgradeable. I found myself asking a different question: what is actually allowed to change? TermMax's upgrade docs make an interesting distinction. The core protocol logic remains immutable, while only a small part of the infrastructure is upgradeable. According to the docs, only the AccessManager and Router use the UUPS proxy pattern. Markets, vaults, and token contracts aren't on that list. That's a meaningful design choice. The contracts holding user collateral aren't meant to be rewritten after deployment. But the more interesting question is what does remain upgradeable. The AccessManager controls permissions, and the Router sits between users and the protocol. They're not random components. They're the points where a single upgrade could affect the entire protocol. The docs also describe safeguards. Upgrades require approval through a4-of-6 Gnosis Safe, with Hypernative monitoring transactions. Immutable core. Upgradeable gateways. It's a thoughtful balance between flexibility and security, but it also raises an interesting governance question. If you were designing the protocol, would you keep the permission layer upgradeable, or freeze it alongside the core logic?

#termmax @TermMax #TMX